State Sen. Dan Dawson introduced Senate File 2349 regarding defense subpoenas during floor debate on February 27th. Official video screenshot.
Randy Evans is the executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council and can be reached at DMRevans2810@gmail.com.
what were they thinking? That's a question I've been asking myself a lot lately.
These were the first words out of my mouth when the Manhattan district attorney had to postpone Donald Trump's New York criminal trial over alleged hush money payments to porn star Stormy Daniels. Government lawyers withdrew the ball, forcing it to be postponed.
I muttered those words during several days of hearings in Georgia regarding the affair between Atlanta prosecutor Fani Willis and her subordinate prosecutors. The prosecutor is her choice to lead the criminal case against Trump and more than a dozen other defendants who tried to overturn the state's 2020 presidential election results. .
And those words brought to mind a bill the Iowa Legislature is considering that would impact criminal cases like those brought against state college athletes for online gambling on sporting events.
What was this government official thinking? In these cases, that's a great question.
Trump's trial in state court in New York City was scheduled to begin on March 25. But the date fell apart when Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg announced that the federal government had finally turned over 100,000 pages of potential evidence to Trump after a year's delay. Counsel.
What were federal prosecutors thinking? They know the rules of “discovery,” or the obligation of prosecutors to turn over potentially exculpatory material to criminal defendants. They knew the public was watching the New York case against Trump with hawkish attention. And any attempt to cut corners is an embarrassment to the American court system, especially when Trump and his many supporters believe the courts and government lawyers are working together on their behalf. They definitely knew what was going to happen.
The public is also watching the Georgia election scandal like a hawk. The former president faces 13 state charges related to overturning Joe Biden's narrow victory in the state in 2020.
Atlanta prosecutor Fani Willis should have known full well that her every move would be scrutinized by critics. So what was she thinking when she decided to have an affair with the man she chose to put her in charge of the Trump case? Highly educated people in positions of authority have no control over their every move. If a foot is to be dissected, you should be smart enough to understand that if a conflict arises, you need to avoid it.
Which brings me to Iowa.
Last summer, criminal charges of illegal gambling were filed against 25 players and student managers from Iowa State and the University of Iowa. This incident had a devastating effect on the careers of these athletes and became the subject of ridicule. They lost the ability to compete.
Most agreed to plead guilty to lesser charges to avoid going to trial and potentially facing larger fines. But attorneys for four ISU players or former players fired back. They received affidavits, called depositions, from investigators and used subpoenas to obtain evidence collected by investigators. What lawyers have learned suggests that the actions of Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation officials constitute an unconstitutional violation of students' privacy rights.
The Story County Prosecutor's Office agreed to drop the charges against the four players once the results of the defense attorney's investigation are made public.
The DCI's tactics in this investigation are an embarrassing stain on this respected law enforcement agency. Just as delays by federal agents in New York criminal cases and shockingly bad decisions by Georgia prosecutors are embarrassing stains on our justice system.
But the response from Iowa state officials is eloquent. Rather than assessing how the sentencing error occurred and establishing clear procedures to ensure that people are not exposed to unwarranted invasions of privacy, state authorities are more concerned about defense attorneys exposing such scandals in the future. appears to be interested in providing a legal shield to prevent this.
The DCI's disturbing conduct came to light after the players' lawyers issued investigative subpoenas and state officials accused students of gambling without first providing a sufficient legal basis for a judge to issue a search warrant. Because they were able to coerce the depositions of DCI officials to learn that they were collecting digital evidence of .
A bill currently before Congress, sponsored by DCI Attorney General Brenna Byrd and state Sen. Dan Dawson, who is a DCI official, would effectively require the use of investigative subpoenas and the ability of criminal defendants to subpoena witnesses. The law abolishes the authority of prosecutors and investigators to give sworn testimony. .
Andrew Mertens, executive director of the Iowa Association for Justice, a group of trial lawyers, offers a chilling analysis of these proposals. (Incidentally, Mertens serves on the board of the Iowa Freedom of Information Association, an organization I lead.)
“These subpoenas are a critical tool, especially when a state seeks to suppress evidence of its wrongdoing, as it did in gambling cases,” Mertens said in a statement.
If the Attorney General's pending bill (SF 2349/HF 2616) had become law, these lawsuits would likely never have been dismissed, would not have ruined students' athletic careers, and the state The widespread violation of student privacy at the university would never have been discovered. Additionally, lawyers for the accused athletes feel they have only scratched the surface of what the state is hiding regarding this scandal, and the Attorney General's pending bill would allow the DCI to file an unconstitutional warrant. No trespass can be excused without any consequences. .
Mertens said defense attorneys face strict requirements under existing Iowa court rules to issue subpoenas. The attorney general's bill would effectively eliminate this already limited investigative tool in criminal cases. On the other hand, he noted that in civil cases where money, not personal freedom, is at stake, lawyers representing insurance companies and the state have broad authority to subpoena evidence under existing court rules.
Mertens added: “It all begs the question: Are these legislative proposals motivated by the state's desire to cover up this and similar conduct under investigation?” Should these people be held accountable, or should they be allowed to violate the constitutional rights of Iowans?”
That's a good question. The same goes for this. What were they thinking?
Editor's note by Laura Belin: You can read Mertens' full statement here.
The Iowa Senate approved Senate File 2349, a national defense subpoena bill, on a near party-line vote of 35-14. House related bills come out of committee and are eligible for floor debate.
On March 6, Democratic state senator Janet Petersen strongly criticized the DCI's invasion of privacy in terms of personal privilege starting at the 9:06:35 mark in the video.
Mr. Dawson then took to the floor and delivered an angry rebuttal. He accused Petersen of trying to “run the agency from top to bottom” and reiterated that the DCI's sports betting investigation resulted in 18 convictions. Watch here:
